Planned cuts to Allegheny County Controller's Office spawn strong rhetoric
Friction between Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald and Controller Chelsa Wagner spilled over into County Council's budget considerations this week with each side sending tartly worded letters over proposed budget cuts in the Controller's Office.
Council has been debating Fitzgerald's $799.4 million budget for 2013 that includes $647,000 in cuts — about 10 percent — to Wagner's office. Several council members have proposed restoring about $200,000 of those reductions.
The strong rhetoric is leading up to a showdown when council passes a final budget next month.
“(Fitzgerald) has informed council members that any cuts to my office, up to and including his proposal, of the most draconian cut of $647,228, would not require any layoffs, and further indicated that such a cut would allow us to operate at current staffing levels. This could not be further from the truth,” Wagner wrote to council on Wednesday. “I want to ensure that you know, without any doubt, that this claim is blatantly false, and has no basis in fact.”
Fitzgerald has maintained that his budget would not require layoffs.
“The most important issue to me in this position is jobs — whether it be protecting them or creating them,” Fitzgerald wrote on Friday. “I would not, and have not, present a budget that would result in layoffs unless there was no other way that it could be avoided.”
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writerfor Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7886 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.